Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andrew425]

As someone who has played only Civ 5, I think its a good game.

The problem with Civ games is that they are repetitive and the game (in my opinion) forces you to build as many wonders as you can. This makes every game just about the same when you're attempting to do an optimal build strategy. (This only came up after 150 hours of play) So when people say that Civ 5 isn't as good I think they're just bored more of the game mechanics then the game itself. Civ 5 is nicely polished and it plays well. The absence of stacking makes it more tactical as you now have to maneuver to get into position. Which helps the defender enormously and the computer isn't all too smart about it.

[Truean]

So, having now played both games for a little bit, here are some thoughts.

Civ 5:
Yes, there should be a reasonable limit to stacking units, but 1 unit per area that holds an entire city.... Really?
The ranged combat is a nice and needed touch to make archers different.
No World Editor included in the game, and the one downloaded offline is very difficult to use.
You can easily see how much health a unit has by the number of soldiers still alive.
Must buy separate expansions that don't include all the stuff you'd expect.
You have to use Steam to register....
Amazing graphics I just want to use for all kinds of things, even though the hexes are a bit odd at first.

Civ 4:
Looks cartoonish and the units/buildings are not to scale at all. They could totally be smaller....
The farms don't "interlock" but rather they look like they're just wooden pieces tossed on a square.
They finally have a semi reasonable solution to the city radius problem.
Includes wordlbuilding program that is actually not half bad once you get the hang of it.

Civ 2:
Old school, but very well made. Revolutionary for it's time (If you still play Mario 3, then you get it).
Simple interface and mechanics that surprisingly don't get that old.
Really this is the refined core of the series that polished Civ 1's fomula and set all the others in motion.

So far, it's really a toss up between 4 and 5, which is odd, because you'd think their latest would blow 4 straight out of the water. Even with the expansion pack 5 still feels like it's missing something in terms of gameplay. Then again, maybe that'll be another expansion, or a steam download.

[Heron TSG]

With Civ4, you can have the default unit count set to 3 instead of 1, and as the unit becomes more damaged, it may only show 1 or 2 soldiers instead of 3. It's not exact, but it helps.

[Starver]

Never played Civ5, but have spent certain amounts of time with the previous ones.  Mostly, I must admit, Civ1 itself (and Colonization), and (without wanting to change this to a CodePage graphics/Tileset graphics argument, by proxy) I don't mind the visuals being old by today's standards, it's what's behind that, that I crave.  (Actually, I did rather like the graphics and game-play of Sid's Alpha Centauri 'sequel', but haven't played that for a while, either...  I bet it looks ancient now, though not as much as the other two.)

Shucks... Personally I'd go for the one with the gameplay style you like.  Harder to assess than with comparing the graphics, though, given it's a matter of experiencing the game.  Also, I've quite liked Settlers (earlier in the series, and (again!) especially the original, as I've just not kept up with the latest incarnations) even though its own resource-handling and territory-gaining gameplay is so much different from the Civ-style versions of these, etc, etc, so it all goes to show that even this can't be counted on quite so much as it would be handy to have it so.

[Blargityblarg]

Personally I prefer civ V just because it isn't a case of 'build a lolhueg stack and obliterate everything'; I never could stand the stacking mechanics.

[MrWillsauce]

I honestly don't see what everybody's problem is with the stack of death. It accomplishes the same thing as having units on different tiles (siege engines in back, cavalry in front etc.), and you still had to be strategic with your units. If you can just make one stack and roflstomp everything, then you aren't playing on a high enough difficulty.

[Flying Dice]

I've disliked stacking as well, if only because the AI tended to make doomstacks, forcing you to do the same. I know that IV tends to be worshipped a lot, but I honestly preferred V. The total lack of stacking feels more than a little gamey, but it does allow for more interesting tactical-level planning.


Or you could just get II and Alpha Centauri.

[ChairmanPoo]

Alpha Centauri all the way. If resource-relaying mechanics werent broken it'd be close to perfect

[Mech#4]

I do prefer Civilization V's combat system over Civilization IV's, percentage chances doesn't appeal to me in such a setting.

[Muz]

I still play Civ4 just for FFH2 and Rhye's and Fall.

Civ 5 is actually better tactically, but loses a lot. IMO, it's too simple. Simple is good, but it's too easy to master. But it's got a better engine and I'm sure some mods fix the borked gameplay.

If Fall For Heaven ever goes onto Civ5, it's an easy choice, because the Civ5 engine allows them to so much more (though you'd lose the religion bit).

[Levi]

Although I like Civ 5 more, I played it again recently and it doesn't seem to be working as well.  I think one of the patches introduced a bunch of bugs in worker behavior that are kind of frustrating.

Probably will be fixed eventually though.

[Guardian G.I.]

Both Civ 4 and Civ 5 are very good games.
However, Civilization 4 had truly epic mods, like Rise of Mankind, for example.

[Truean]

After playing Civ 5 I have to say, I do like it, a lot. I stopped wanting to scream at people for a bit.

Looking at the game in isolation, it's a hell of a good game idea. It plays nicely and in an integrated fashion overall. It's really an interesting concept. However, there are certain areas that it departs from the traditional civilization games, but it works out overall.

The unit animations are actually great in combat, though they do take a lot of time, especially if you have a battle of any size. The archery units (ranged attackers) allow for hit and run  tactics , particularly with some terrain tiles obscuring views. Taking a city is a major thing that can take several game terms. I will say that it is a major pain that no matter how many units you have in the city, you can lose a city if the city's hitpoints go to zero.... You would think you would have the option of sending out troops to defend the city first, or something. It would seem not. Perhaps this is at least somewhat made up for by the fact that cities now have a ranted attack consisting of arrows (or later bullets/missiles).

[Blargityblarg]

After playing Civ 5 I have to say, I do like it, a lot. I stopped wanting to scream at people for a bit.

Looking at the game in isolation, it's a hell of a good game idea. It plays nicely and in an integrated fashion overall. It's really an interesting concept. However, there are certain areas that it departs from the traditional civilization games, but it works out overall.

The unit animations are actually great in combat, though they do take a lot of time, especially if you have a battle of any size. The archery units (ranged attackers) allow for hit and run  tactics , particularly with some terrain tiles obscuring views. Taking a city is a major thing that can take several game terms. I will say that it is a major pain that no matter how many units you have in the city, you can lose a city if the city's hitpoints go to zero.... You would think you would have the option of sending out troops to defend the city first, or something. It would seem not. Perhaps this is at least somewhat made up for by the fact that cities now have a ranted attack consisting of arrows (or later bullets/missiles).

Units garrisoned inside a city actually buff its defensive strength, and ranged units inside a city ca fire out in addition to the city itself.

[Truean]

[nods] True.

I do believe the English are the best if only for the longbow (3 tiles instead of 2). The benefit of this unit can't be overstated, because cities can only fire at unites within 2 squares. So, the longbowman is safely outside the reach of any city's defensive fire and can attack without fear of being damaged. Moreover, the extra tile range allows concentrated focused fire upon incoming units when longbowmen are placed into deep rows. 

Question:
Can you hide the city name tags and cultural boundaries? I haven't found anything anywhere to do it. They're just getting annoying, because I can't see the tiles behind them, and I just don't want to look at them.